Your ex-friend was bowdlerizing Walter Duranty, the Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times apologist for Stalin, who covered the Soviet Union in the '20s and '30s from Moscow.
"to put it brutally - you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs...", putting a brave face on the forced collectivization of the Ukraine which caused a famine which killed up to 10 million people in 1932-33.
The quote in question is far from the worst of his misappreciations and lies. The import of his inaccurate reporting is that, while Stalin was starving his Ukrainian subjects in what cannot be described as anything but genocide, the US was extending diplomatic relations to Stalin's government based partially on Duranty's glowing reports.
While you're busy criticizing Fox News, be sure to eat your own too. They're still doing this same crap today on a smaller scale, too.
Get a crappy help desk job and work your way up. Or do phone support. Or be a telemarketer for a computer company if that's all you can get.
You need to work to succeed. No one is going to hand you an IT job based on certifications or college. Well, they might, but you'll be working for an idiot, and probably not for long.
The issue isn't gun control, it's sustaining base. The US military would be shockingly ineffective if the populace weren't by and large behind it. A serious rebellion would require support from a significant minority of the citizens, at the very least. This is not forthcoming.
The government is remarkably palliative, preventing such an alliance while ramming additional indignities down our throats with the other hand.
Like I said, it lacks a clear-cut solution. Unless the pols get sloppy, that is.
I see nothing about variable implementations. Crappy RAID controllers aren't worth much. A good RAID controller has its own BIOS and its own processor. That means it actually controls all aspects of the drive interface. Most cheap RAID 1 implementations do not implement this.
I have seen a lot of people with a boot drive and a RAID implementation as their primary data partition. This is nicer, I suppose, than nothing. This does nothing for you if you have a total loss of the boot drive. To me, RAID implementation is about saving my own time, not having to do system recoveries at all. I don't like working on the same thing repeatedly - call me lazy.
Here is my rig:
Proliant 5500 server (4x400mhz P2 Xeon, 512mb RAM running Gentoo) w/redundant power supplies and dual redundant fans. 6x 18.2gb UW 10k SCSI hotswap drives configured up in a 70GB RAID-5 array with 1 hot spare. Smart 2/P array controller w/4MB cache 1500va UPS 4-tape DAT autoloader for backup
Cost: about $300 on Ebay (UPS was $125 new in addition), plus about $150 shipping.
My rig is more reliable than anything anyone has mentioned here, and probably cheaper. True, it sounds like a wind tunnel, but you can put it in a cabinet if you really want to. If you want your data to be _safe_, this is the right way to go.
Imagine, all of this for my collection of mp3's and pr0n.
Well, it was the way we used to copy floppies to the hard drive back when. It had the advantage of buffering everything in RAM rather than reaching back to the floppy for every file. Much faster, in other words.
You know, wouldn't it be great - your battleaxe wife is upstairs, some chubby 20 year old girl with her lips wrapped around your schlong in the room adjoining the Oval Office.
Now if he could just have controlled where he shot that stuff...
It's like knowing the classics. If you don't know assembly, you haven't a clue how the system works. Your optimizations will always be halfassed, since you don't know why things work the way they do.
Someone who takes the time to learn assembly should be applauded, since the general trend has been to ignore it for greater and greater layers of crufty insulating toolkits and libraries to protect you from how the machine actually works. Two generations of coders beholden to API authors are the result. The current sexiness of virtual machines is another example of this. While HLLs and virtual machines are probably good for getting useful work out of people who otherwise wouldn't be willing to put in the time to learn how to code, your post is an example of why the HLL monoculture nowadays is harmful to the personal growth of today's coder. You probably dissuaded a few people who would benefit from learning how to do a few mov's and shl's.
It seems to me you never considered it worthwile to learn assembly and are reinforcing the 'rightness' of your decision by crapping on those that have. You're wrong in any event.
Umm, they're dead because I was part of that scene, and that scene is gone. Leaving that out, i'd run one again in a heartbeat. Was fun.
There are philosophical reasons too that the BBS is dead. A telnet bbs is about the same as an internet site - anyone can go there. BBS' used to be governed (in the US) by local calling area - ie, you would generally only get calls from there. It was an artificial limitation. The Internet wiped out that barrier, essentially killing the local BBS.
The scene is dead. What you refer to has nothing to do with what we did back then.
I mean seriously - the only people using them anymore are for nostalgia.
I remember back in the day, I had four modem lines in my parents' basement churning over my 10base2 Lantastic setup with a variety of 286 and 386 boxes. I could get 80-120 calls a day - everything from file leechers to door game players to people who liked to write perverted endless stories.
It all ended about 1995 or so - some eked out for a few more years, but the thrust of the community turned to the Internet long before that.
I don't see the point. Set up a web board or something, that's about as close as you can get. If you feel completely compelled, you might want to investigate Citadel. I note some halfway decent Citadel ports to a telnet based system.
Of course it's just like old Citadel, ie, crappy like wwiv, but most of the good BBS systems got bought by commercial vendors and then summarily dropped into the bit bucket when it didn't turn out to be profitable in the late 90's - pretty much what happened to Wildcat, Searchlight, Pc-board, proboard, etc etc etc.
Great film, and I tend to agree that limitations on this sort of database are required. What the correct metric is between preservation of privacy and public interest, I do not know, but there has to be some kind of middle ground.
These do not have a very good history. I don't know if you have tried using say, Mapquest's. If you have, you might have been in the mood to say "Mapquest is on crack". The directions are a good attempt, but aren't anywhere near effective.
The path computation is based upon a limited set of superhighways. The rest is just an attempt to move you to/from an exit, and not very effectively. I understand cpu limitations and limitations on the very information offered by satellite (or aerial photography) generated maps play a role here. For instance, many roads listed on maps as being 'four lane' tend to vary in size based upon bridge limitations, turn lanes, uneven buildup or the whims of the line painters, who put a huge shoulder in instead of another lane. Road maps also do not depict traffic lights or stop signs which impede progress. Lastly, traffic conditions are not taken into consideration. This one is huge, particularly on the US East Coast.
The net effect is that if you follow automated directions the trip time will mostly be far longer than if a person familiar with local conditions selects the route.
Beside which, topography is modeled but the ground cover isn't. This can be a huge consideration in military route selection. If I send a column through a forest, it can conceal both sound and visual data from the enemy. This mapping system doesn't have that data - which can change rapidly anyway because clearcutting trees is sadly simple for military units. They carry with them the equipment to do such things. How about guard towers that raise the viewer above the surrounding terrain? How about cameras? Houses?
Well, I can say with some surety that this system would never be permitted for use in the US military for these reasons, as well as a few others. Nothing will obviate good reconnaissance.
I'm really only familiar with politics in England, out of all the EU. My understanding is that MPs can't accept campaign contributions, the campaigns are paid for out of government funds.
Willing to be corrected on this one - some Brit journalist at Lehigh back a couple years ago told me this.
It is probably too big of an assumption to assume that this is the case elsewhere in the EU, but my perception of politics in Europe is that the politicians can't accept contributions and soft money like they can here.
Things don't happen in a vacuum. US software corporations are lobbying intensely for software patents. The idea is that if they can patent software concepts, they can provide a reliable and consistent revenue stream.
This has to be the most obvious manifestation to date of the threat that OSS presents to the traditional software vendors, led by Microsoft. I doubt they would be bothering to do this against corporate competition. All corporations labor under the same constraints. They have to pay people to do the work. OSS breaks the rules in a significant way, and is disruptive to traditional proprietary software houses. They don't have any value-add anymore.
Patents are primarily defensive in nature in any event. Most attempts to use them offensively to crush competing technologies, or shake down entire industries, eventually fail.
I don't understand exactly what the current Administration thinks it is doing trying to pressure the EU to adopt software patents. It is not like the revenue stream is going to land in Europe. What goal or self-interest is fulfilled by adopting software patents in the EU? (beside the obvious cash payoff previously documented to the Irish Presidency) How are jobs created in Europe? How does this benefit Europeans of any nation?
I wonder what kind of arm-twisting by the US is going on in the mythical smoke-filled room (where all such decisions are being made).
Sorry, if you let your users use insecure software when there are alternatives, you are an incompetent sysadmin. If you made a stink about it and got slapped down, it's the management's fault, but if you acquiesced, it's your fault.
Slashdot Mirror
Your ex-friend was bowdlerizing Walter Duranty, the Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times apologist for Stalin, who covered the Soviet Union in the '20s and '30s from Moscow.
"to put it brutally - you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs...", putting a brave face on the forced collectivization of the Ukraine which caused a famine which killed up to 10 million people in 1932-33.
The quote in question is far from the worst of his misappreciations and lies. The import of his inaccurate reporting is that, while Stalin was starving his Ukrainian subjects in what cannot be described as anything but genocide, the US was extending diplomatic relations to Stalin's government based partially on Duranty's glowing reports.
While you're busy criticizing Fox News, be sure to eat your own too. They're still doing this same crap today on a smaller scale, too.
He'll probably be dead by then. He's playing a dangerous game this time - there are a lot of people with weapons who will find him contemptible.
This film paints a big target on his forehead.
Get a crappy help desk job and work your way up. Or do phone support. Or be a telemarketer for a computer company if that's all you can get.
You need to work to succeed. No one is going to hand you an IT job based on certifications or college. Well, they might, but you'll be working for an idiot, and probably not for long.
Seems to me they've driven nearly everyone else out of business. BSA might as well be synonymous with Microsoft.
The issue isn't gun control, it's sustaining base. The US military would be shockingly ineffective if the populace weren't by and large behind it. A serious rebellion would require support from a significant minority of the citizens, at the very least. This is not forthcoming.
The government is remarkably palliative, preventing such an alliance while ramming additional indignities down our throats with the other hand.
Like I said, it lacks a clear-cut solution. Unless the pols get sloppy, that is.
Not possible as long as politicians can still take money.
The problem lacks a clear-cut solution.
I see nothing about variable implementations. Crappy RAID controllers aren't worth much. A good RAID controller has its own BIOS and its own processor. That means it actually controls all aspects of the drive interface. Most cheap RAID 1 implementations do not implement this.
I have seen a lot of people with a boot drive and a RAID implementation as their primary data partition. This is nicer, I suppose, than nothing. This does nothing for you if you have a total loss of the boot drive. To me, RAID implementation is about saving my own time, not having to do system recoveries at all. I don't like working on the same thing repeatedly - call me lazy.
Here is my rig:
Proliant 5500 server (4x400mhz P2 Xeon, 512mb RAM running Gentoo) w/redundant power supplies and dual redundant fans.
6x 18.2gb UW 10k SCSI hotswap drives configured up in a 70GB RAID-5 array with 1 hot spare.
Smart 2/P array controller w/4MB cache
1500va UPS
4-tape DAT autoloader for backup
Cost: about $300 on Ebay (UPS was $125 new in addition), plus about $150 shipping.
My rig is more reliable than anything anyone has mentioned here, and probably cheaper. True, it sounds like a wind tunnel, but you can put it in a cabinet if you really want to. If you want your data to be _safe_, this is the right way to go.
Imagine, all of this for my collection of mp3's and pr0n.
Well, it was the way we used to copy floppies to the hard drive back when. It had the advantage of buffering everything in RAM rather than reaching back to the floppy for every file. Much faster, in other words.
The "X" part probably refers to the old DOS utility Xcopy.
You know, wouldn't it be great - your battleaxe wife is upstairs, some chubby 20 year old girl with her lips wrapped around your schlong in the room adjoining the Oval Office.
Now if he could just have controlled where he shot that stuff...
It's like knowing the classics. If you don't know assembly, you haven't a clue how the system works. Your optimizations will always be halfassed, since you don't know why things work the way they do.
Someone who takes the time to learn assembly should be applauded, since the general trend has been to ignore it for greater and greater layers of crufty insulating toolkits and libraries to protect you from how the machine actually works. Two generations of coders beholden to API authors are the result. The current sexiness of virtual machines is another example of this. While HLLs and virtual machines are probably good for getting useful work out of people who otherwise wouldn't be willing to put in the time to learn how to code, your post is an example of why the HLL monoculture nowadays is harmful to the personal growth of today's coder. You probably dissuaded a few people who would benefit from learning how to do a few mov's and shl's.
It seems to me you never considered it worthwile to learn assembly and are reinforcing the 'rightness' of your decision by crapping on those that have. You're wrong in any event.
Umm, they're dead because I was part of that scene, and that scene is gone. Leaving that out, i'd run one again in a heartbeat. Was fun.
There are philosophical reasons too that the BBS is dead. A telnet bbs is about the same as an internet site - anyone can go there. BBS' used to be governed (in the US) by local calling area - ie, you would generally only get calls from there. It was an artificial limitation. The Internet wiped out that barrier, essentially killing the local BBS.
The scene is dead. What you refer to has nothing to do with what we did back then.
I mean seriously - the only people using them anymore are for nostalgia.
I remember back in the day, I had four modem lines in my parents' basement churning over my 10base2 Lantastic setup with a variety of 286 and 386 boxes. I could get 80-120 calls a day - everything from file leechers to door game players to people who liked to write perverted endless stories.
It all ended about 1995 or so - some eked out for a few more years, but the thrust of the community turned to the Internet long before that.
I don't see the point. Set up a web board or something, that's about as close as you can get. If you feel completely compelled, you might want to investigate Citadel. I note some halfway decent Citadel ports to a telnet based system.
Of course it's just like old Citadel, ie, crappy like wwiv, but most of the good BBS systems got bought by commercial vendors and then summarily dropped into the bit bucket when it didn't turn out to be profitable in the late 90's - pretty much what happened to Wildcat, Searchlight, Pc-board, proboard, etc etc etc.
I preferred the blueberries in the Poconos, but the black raspberries were all over the place too.
Beautiful country, there.
Great film, and I tend to agree that limitations on this sort of database are required. What the correct metric is between preservation of privacy and public interest, I do not know, but there has to be some kind of middle ground.
These do not have a very good history. I don't know if you have tried using say, Mapquest's. If you have, you might have been in the mood to say "Mapquest is on crack". The directions are a good attempt, but aren't anywhere near effective.
The path computation is based upon a limited set of superhighways. The rest is just an attempt to move you to/from an exit, and not very effectively. I understand cpu limitations and limitations on the very information offered by satellite (or aerial photography) generated maps play a role here. For instance, many roads listed on maps as being 'four lane' tend to vary in size based upon bridge limitations, turn lanes, uneven buildup or the whims of the line painters, who put a huge shoulder in instead of another lane. Road maps also do not depict traffic lights or stop signs which impede progress. Lastly, traffic conditions are not taken into consideration. This one is huge, particularly on the US East Coast.
The net effect is that if you follow automated directions the trip time will mostly be far longer than if a person familiar with local conditions selects the route.
Beside which, topography is modeled but the ground cover isn't. This can be a huge consideration in military route selection. If I send a column through a forest, it can conceal both sound and visual data from the enemy. This mapping system doesn't have that data - which can change rapidly anyway because clearcutting trees is sadly simple for military units. They carry with them the equipment to do such things. How about guard towers that raise the viewer above the surrounding terrain? How about cameras? Houses?
Well, I can say with some surety that this system would never be permitted for use in the US military for these reasons, as well as a few others. Nothing will obviate good reconnaissance.
Between that C-64 based multitasking, multiplatform operating system with tcp/ip and a web server in it, and this...
Dude, you need beer and chicks.
We've gotten lots of shit done, more is on the way.
Hope you enjoy it.
As opposed to the DNC daily faxed talking points, where the Congressional minority leaders get to decide what YOU think.
Yes, New Jersey. (flush)
What is with all these stupid 'Silicon' names?
Thanks for the clarification: the image presented over here is that politics in Great Britain are immune to the money pressures here.
I'm really only familiar with politics in England, out of all the EU. My understanding is that MPs can't accept campaign contributions, the campaigns are paid for out of government funds.
Willing to be corrected on this one - some Brit journalist at Lehigh back a couple years ago told me this.
It is probably too big of an assumption to assume that this is the case elsewhere in the EU, but my perception of politics in Europe is that the politicians can't accept contributions and soft money like they can here.
Things don't happen in a vacuum. US software corporations are lobbying intensely for software patents. The idea is that if they can patent software concepts, they can provide a reliable and consistent revenue stream.
This has to be the most obvious manifestation to date of the threat that OSS presents to the traditional software vendors, led by Microsoft. I doubt they would be bothering to do this against corporate competition. All corporations labor under the same constraints. They have to pay people to do the work. OSS breaks the rules in a significant way, and is disruptive to traditional proprietary software houses. They don't have any value-add anymore.
Patents are primarily defensive in nature in any event. Most attempts to use them offensively to crush competing technologies, or shake down entire industries, eventually fail.
I don't understand exactly what the current Administration thinks it is doing trying to pressure the EU to adopt software patents. It is not like the revenue stream is going to land in Europe. What goal or self-interest is fulfilled by adopting software patents in the EU? (beside the obvious cash payoff previously documented to the Irish Presidency) How are jobs created in Europe? How does this benefit Europeans of any nation?
I wonder what kind of arm-twisting by the US is going on in the mythical smoke-filled room (where all such decisions are being made).
You should look harder for things.
Sorry, if you let your users use insecure software when there are alternatives, you are an incompetent sysadmin. If you made a stink about it and got slapped down, it's the management's fault, but if you acquiesced, it's your fault.
Send the excuses elsewhere.
You forgot to tell the reader one thing - all those bugs in Mozilla are already fixed.
None of the ones in the IE list are.
Either you don't read carefully or you are purposefully trying to mislead, I can't decide which.